Page 581 - Week 03 - Tuesday, 20 March 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
his comments today he did not give the current Government some credit for at least getting this sort of legislation that we are talking about on the table in a form and not just for drafting instructions. I would suggest that that is a much better sort of operation than the sort of drafting instructions that we received which, incidentally, did not even include some of the most important aspects relating to appeals, which we have picked up.
We have made those decisions - the hard decisions. One of the reasons why this did not come from the other side of the chamber was that members opposite could not make those hard decisions on matters such as appeals, betterment and so on. There is therefore a clear commitment to carry out the sort of investigative inquiry that Mr Moore seeks in the development of the Territory plan.
The Government is mindful of the potential for concern about Civic redevelopment. We have listened very carefully to the views that have been put forward this afternoon, and they have been pretty basic, I might add. There has been a lot of waffle, but not much real substance. I have no doubt that they will be considered by my colleagues in the Alliance Government's Cabinet when they look at this issue.
Discussion concluded.
ADJOURNMENT
Motion (by Mr Collaery) proposed:
That the Assembly do now adjourn.
Assembly Business
MR WOOD (5.10): I wish to speak to the adjournment motion because we still have matters outstanding on the business paper. I put some time into preparing a couple of speeches and I want the opportunity to make them. But there are more important issues even than that. I do not know why the house should adjourn at 5.10 pm when there are still matters on the paper, and when we are accustomed to sitting on Tuesday nights. I understand that it is proposed that we do not sit tonight.
Mr Kaine: That is the reason for the adjournment motion, yes. It is pretty explicit. Your party consented to it.
MR WOOD: It had the consent of our party?
Mr Jensen: Yes. Your party was told last Friday.
MR WOOD: There seems to be a difference of opinion here. We have had a clear statement from Mr Jensen that we were
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .